From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756088AbYDJCjp (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Apr 2008 22:39:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754803AbYDJCji (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Apr 2008 22:39:38 -0400 Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.150]:35386 "EHLO e32.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754798AbYDJCjh (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Apr 2008 22:39:37 -0400 Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 19:38:18 -0700 From: sukadev@us.ibm.com To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Andrew Morton , clg@fr.ibm.com, serue@us.ibm.com, "David C. Hansen" , Pavel Emelyanov , Containers , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] clone64() and unshare64() system calls Message-ID: <20080410023818.GD28477@us.ibm.com> References: <20080409222611.GA28087@us.ibm.com> <47FD5899.2040206@zytor.com> <20080410010717.GA28477@us.ibm.com> <47FD6921.6090408@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47FD6921.6090408@zytor.com> X-Operating-System: Linux 2.0.32 on an i486 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org H. Peter Anvin [hpa@zytor.com] wrote: >> Yes, this was discussed before in the context of Pavel Emelyanov's patch >> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/1/16/109 >> along with sys_indirect(). While there was no consensus, it looked like >> adding a new system call was better than open ended interfaces. > > That's not really an open-ended interface, it's just an expandable bitmap. Yes, we liked such an approach earlier too and its conceivable that we will run out of the 64-bits too :-) But as Jon Corbet pointed out in the the thread above, it looked like adding a new system call has been the "traditional" way of solving this in Linux so far and there has been no consensus on a newer approach. Sukadev